Re: [pcp] pmlc access control, was Re: PCP Updates: qa fallout from ipv6/unix sockets for pmlogger and pmlc

[Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
> Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > [...]  I believe pmlc use is very rare, probably because I have not
> > managed to convince anyone else that the "value add" proposition for
> > pmlc in the following scenario is real: [...]
> 
> I very much believe in that scenario!  I'm just not sure whether it's
> best done within pmie vice within a more clever pmlogger.  An extra
> complication is that pmie requires a second connection to pmcd (a
> temporary one at that, repeatedly suffering startup costs);

The usual model would be local pmie daemon (no temporary connection).
I'm not following how its a complication to have a second connection
to pmcd...?  (relative to the level of complication of pmlogger code
that we'd have to consider, which would appear to require a decision
making engine like pmie to be built into pmlogger...?).

> it cannot piggy-back on an archive being written-to by pmlogger.

Can you explain that some more?  ("piggy-back" in what way?)  The pmlc
model is that pmie tells pmlogger what (extra) to log dynamically, via
pmlc, so in that sense it is piggy-backing on the existing archive...?

cheers.

--
Nathan